Talk:Warfare in Medieval Scotland/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 21:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll read through properly tomorrow and begin the review then. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll work through against the criteria below bit by bit. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My preference is to tick off when I think an issue is resolved (or provide a justification for the status quo) line by line. Hope that is OK.--  SabreBD  (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've finished the run through now, only a last couple of items to fix. A nice article, hope it goes to ACR in due course. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;


 * "The arrival of the Vikings" - worth wikilinking
 * ✅--  SabreBD  (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "mainly of poorly armoured spear and bowmen" - should this be "spear- and bowmen"?
 * ✅--  SabreBD  (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * " He adopted a policy of castle slighting" - would "slighting castles" be more natural? Also worth either wikilinking or explaining what this means.
 * ✅--  SabreBD  (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "However, in the early fifteenth century..." However means something different at the start of a sentence; you want "In the early fifteenth century, however,..."
 * ✅ - didn't need this and it was the wrong century anyway.--  SabreBD  (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "In the British language," - I'm guessing British means "Britons" in this context? I'd explain this, as for many readers "British" would mean "British English"
 * ✅ - Brythonic language is more technically correct.--  SabreBD  (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "In Latin the word is either comitatus or tutores, or even familia" - this assumes the reader knows what familia means - I'd wikilink, or explain.
 * ✅ - I think this level of detail is unhelpful, I cut this down to the most common one, which is explained.--  SabreBD  (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "and derives for the Latin verb tueor" - "derives from"
 * ✅--  SabreBD  (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "The war-band functioned as an extension of the ruler's legal person" - I'd expand this: what did this mean in practice?
 * ✅ I removed it. I have no idea and cannot get to the source at the moment to find out. It doesn't seem that important to the article.--  SabreBD  (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "These wider forces depended on the obligations to defend a province or kingdom by land and sea and early sources from Dál Riata indicate an attempt to define this as an obligation based on landholding." - This wasn't an easy sentence to read. Whose obligations does the first bit refer to, and what is the "this" in the second part?
 * ✅ - I split this up and explained.--  SabreBD  (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Pictish stones, like that at Aberlemno in Angus, show mounted and foot warriors with swords, spears, bows, helmets and shields. These images may show infantry with spears in formation or gathered together for protection and they show mounted troops, often with spears" - some repetition here (two mentions of mounted troops, and three mentions of spears)
 * ✅ - I cut out the repetition: I think this still makes the intended points.--  SabreBD  (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "the Clyde-Forth line" - worth expanding or linking
 * Oddly, I cannot find anything to which this can be linked, yet it is a very common term. Explanations seem a bit long (and the point here is not to have to explain), so I may need to get back to this one.--  SabreBD  (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "often smaller "nucleated" constructions" - what does this mean? (I know, but many readers wouldn't!)
 * ✅--  SabreBD  (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * " and the relatively high proportion of kings who are recorded as dying in fires or drowning, suggest that sieges were a more important part of warfare in Northern Britain" - I could see why fires might indicate a siege, but why drowning?
 * ✅ I presume in moats or wells. It is no clearer in the source. I have cut it down to the fires, which I think is sufficient in itself, still true and hopefully needs no explanation.--  SabreBD  (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "and we know that the Picts had relatively large numbers of ships" - the first person is usually considered unencyclopedic - I'd recommend "and the Picts are known to have had..." instead
 * ✅ - I also re-edited this to make it clearer.--  SabreBD  (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * " that obliged groups of households to produce 177 ships and 2,478 men." - that obliged each group to produce these, or the groups in total to produce them?
 * ✅ - if it was each the English would be speaking Gaelic. Clarified this.--  SabreBD  (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "The same source mentions the first recorded naval battle around the British Isles in 719 as part of a civil conflict " - unclear if this is the first recorded naval battle around the British Isles, that just happens to be part of a civil conflict, or is this is the first recorded naval battle around the British Isles that was part of a civil conflict. Personally, if it's the former, I'd lose the civil conflict bit.
 * ✅--  SabreBD  (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "The Viking onslaught of the British Isles..." - "on the British Isles". Are you happy with the word "onslaught" here? It seems quite a strong term.
 * ✅ I was pretty happy with onslaught, but raids and invasions sums up the two problematic activities.--  SabreBD  (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * " the creation of the thalassocracies of the north and west" - most people will have to click on that to understand it; I'd give an explanation in the sentence itself.
 * ✅ Gave an explanation, although not sure there is much point in using the term now - may get back to this one.--  SabreBD  (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "only one metre deep" - you'll need to give the Imperial equivalent
 * ✅--  SabreBD  (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "By the twelfth century the ability to call on wider bodies of men for major campaigns had become the "common" (communis exertcitus) or "Scottish army" (exercitus Scoticanus)," - was the ability actually called this, or do you mean that that the common and Scottish armies were formed in this way?
 * ✅ both.--  SabreBD  (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Beside the baronial castles there were royal castles" - I'd suggest "In addition to..." rather than "Beside...", which could be taken literally.
 * ✅.--  SabreBD  (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * " rather than allow fortresses to be easily retaken and then held by the English" - taken, or retaken? (given that the first examples are his own fortifications)
 * ✅.--  SabreBD  (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * " in ascending order of size" - I'd recommend this goes before the list of the three classes of ship
 * ✅. Should be clearer now.--  SabreBD  (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * " However, they could usually outrun larger vessels ..." - as per "however" point above
 * This looks a legitimate "however" to me. They were not able to beat the English however they could run for it. Not sure why that doesn't work.--  SabreBD  (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "through the system of ouncelands and pennylands" - which are...? First time you've mentioned them.
 * ✅. Linked them.--  SabreBD  (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "This process probably began in the thirteenth century, but would be intensified under Robert I" - "was intensified under Robert I"
 * "Would be" because Robert I is really late medieval and this is the high medieval bit, so it turns up later.--  SabreBD  (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "The importance of these ships was underlined by becoming common in depictions" - "by their becoming..."
 * ✅.--  SabreBD  (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "There are mentions of fleets..." Mentions in what context? Chronicler, records, modern works?
 * ✅ Thought this was clear from context, but clarified.--  SabreBD  (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.


 * Some figures (e.g. "15½ to 18½ feet" ) need metric equivalents added in. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. I standardised these in the article to imperial then converted to metric. I don't think that this can be done for tons for the ships, as (if memory serves) this is a measurement of displacement not weight. I will have to check up on that one as I am not sure if the metric system is different in how it measure this.--  SabreBD  (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;


 * Looks good.
 * Piggott, S., The Prehistoric Peoples of Scotland (London: Taylor & Francis, 1962). - if a volume lacks an ISBN ref, you could add a WorldCat OCLC number instead; it'll be supported by the templates here. You can look them up [ http://www.worldcat.org/advancedsearch here].
 * ✅, but not sure if I got this right as no template seems to activated - cannot find an example at the moment to base this on.--  SabreBD  (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Stubbs, William in the bibliography for Henry II of England as an example. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Mersey and Contamine entries need a line break at the start to separate them from the previous entries. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--  SabreBD  (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;


 * Fine. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.


 * None spotted so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

✅ Added a "Main article" link--  SabreBD  (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC) (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Seems to cover the literature well.
 * The article doesn't seem to link to Warfare of Scotland in the High Middle Ages anywhere (or vice versa actually).Hchc2009 (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Good. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In the later medieval sections, you have very little on the warfare of the populations of the Highlands and Western Isles. While accepting there are few definitive sources on this, some mention of the differences from lowland organisation would be worthwhile.  The idea that schiltrons are primarily defensive formations is debateable although admittedly it is a common enough view.  An alternative view that Scottish tactics against the English were usually offensive exists (see Chris Brown's Bannockburn, for example). --Monstrelet (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.


 * Neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.


 * Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;


 * Some of the PD-Art images lack US copyright tags; not a problem here, but would need fixing at A Class Review (ACR).
 * Great Michael.jpg is listed as being from The Story of Leith by John Russell, published 1922; the tag claims that this is under the life + 70 year rule; the page needs updating, therefore, to show when John Russell died (it needs to have been before 1942 by my maths).
 * ✅ - After several hours concluded I just cannot find evidence of this obscure authors dead. Replaced the image. Not happy about the contrast with the background, but needs must.--  SabreBD  (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

✅--  SabreBD  (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally fine; most end in a full-stop, though, which isn't used under the MOS unless the caption is a proper sentence. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)